Court filings show prosecutors rejected Robert Bowers’ plea offer for life in prison |

Court filings show prosecutors rejected Robert Bowers’ plea offer for life in prison

Megan Guza
Robert D. Bowers

Federal prosecutors rejected an offer from accused Tree of Life synagogue gunman Robert Bowers to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison, according to court documents filed Tuesday in federal court.

Defense attorneys for Bowers have said from the beginning they hope to resolve the charges without going to trial. He is accused of killing 11 worshippers and injuring a half-dozen other people, including four police officers.

Bowers’ attorneys noted the government’s rejection of a plea deal in filings entered in response to prosecutors’ push to set a trial date.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment on the recent filings.

Prosecutors in the case last month filed a motion asking the judge to intervene and force the defense to agree to a schedule. The proposed draft schedule would have jury selection for Bowers, who faces 63 federal charges and the death penalty, begin Sept. 14, 2020.

Defense counsel — which includes Judy Clarke and public defenders Elisa Long and Michael Novara — wrote in response to the draft schedule that such a timeline is “unrealistic” and fails to account for “the time-consuming work of investigating and presenting the history and background of a person on trial for his life,” as well as the slew of legal issues that comes in the lead-up to the trial.

Defense attorneys also noted that jury selection Sept. 14 would place the trial during the Jewish High Holy Days and put a possible penalty phase, where jurors would decide whether Bowers would be put to death, near the time of the second-year mark of the Oct. 27 shooting.

Bowers is accused of opening fire on Shabbat services at the synagogue, which housed the congregations Tree of Life or L’Simcha, Dor Hadash and New Light.

Prosecutors argued in their initial filing that the victims of the Oct. 27 attack deserve timely justice.

Defense attorneys responded by noting the judge should consider “that this case would already be over” if attorneys had accepted Bowers’ offer to plead guilty in exchange for life in prison with no chance of parole.

“Instead, and against the publicly expressed request of two of the congregations to resolve this case without a trial, the government has insisted on pursuing the death penalty,” the defense team wrote.

Leaders of congregations Dor Hadash and New Light had previously called on Attorney General William Barr to keep the death penalty off the table in hopes of forgoing the trauma of a drawn-out trial.

Defense attorneys also argued that the proposed trial schedule would put proceedings at the tail end of the 2020 presidential election, in which they predicted Pennsylvania will likely be a battleground state.

“(Donald Trump) — having already publicly called for our client’s execution — may be expected to politicize this case again” and pollute the potential jury pool, Bowers’ attorneys wrote.

Defense counsel proposed their own potential deadlines, noting that they continue to wrestle with discovering issues with prosecutors. Their proposed deadlines include filing all discovery motions and an Aug. 10 status conference to set future dates for resolving other issues, including venue, jury selection and jury instructions.

Megan Guza is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Megan at 412-380-8519, [email protected] or via Twitter .

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.